Words fail me.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
I mean really, REALLY annoying?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
Ilíon, is this really annoying?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Doesn't that make me a better person than you?
Yes, it does. However, that simple fact does not account for all the vast legions of people who can just as freely define morality in a completely different way. Just because you are a good person doesn't place any sort of social obligation upon anyone else to be likewise. Ilion is absolutely correct to point out that in the real world being an individually good person simply is not good enough. You must expect, indeed demand, similar behavior from everyone. Doing that requires some agreed upon standard of social behavior. Now, obviously, such standards could be coded into law (ie "Do not microwave your baby or we will put you in jail"). But just as clearly any kind of legal code that attempted to define every sort of bhevior would be unworkable. A much better system, is to have a population which simply has an agreed upon set of moral principles which they accept on faith as arising from some underlieing set of universally true principles. In that way, you do not need a huge legal system, people would act 'morally' simply because they are taught the difference between right and wrong as deinfed by that grass roots moral perspective. That is the role religion plays within society, and it is an important role.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
A much better system, is to have a population which simply has an agreed upon set of moral principles which they accept on faith as arising from some underlieing set of universally true principles. In that way, you do not need a huge legal system, people would act 'morally' simply because they are taught the difference between right and wrong as deinfed by that grass roots moral perspective. That is the role religion plays within society, and it is an important role.
I agree with you there, and have always avoided attacking religion, in debates, based on this, but then you have to replace the now redundant legal system with a theocracy, to ensure that all people have a religion that imparts some morality into them.
-
And, since you *know* that all those assertions are false, they are lies and you are a liar (on top of being a fool).
'cause, you know, I can imagine it would be.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism?
How is it not consistent? If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.)
Brady Kelly wrote:
You've stooped really low here.
No; you *refuse* to think clearly, logically, rationally.
...a Pokemon Master!!![^]
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ilíon wrote:
If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible."
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You imagine that your strawmen misrepresentations of "theists" are relevent to anything.
Brady Kelly wrote:
... It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You refuse even to recognize that you're asserting objective morality ... except that the morality you assert is not grounded in anything, it's just there floating in your assertions.
-
I have to admit, out of all the people with whom I have *arguments* (that is so feeble when you do that) you are by far and away the most completely ignorant, bigoted and just plain thick. You clearly have not a single idea of your own, do not understand anything outside of your own selfish world view, have never read anything other than that which supports your twisted ideals and generally have not got a clue. Even when challenged you shy away and refuse to answer simply asserting that only you know the truth. Well I hope your happy with it. I suspect you are quite alone and very lonely which is sad but you bring it on yourself. In short, you are a fool.
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Ilíon wrote:
Do you really imagine I care that fools who refuse to think cannot abide having the truth spoken?
Did that jumble of words actully say something? You're a fucking moron who has nothing to say, yet you keep coming back here braying like a donkey. You don't like us, don't fit in here and have one broken record to play, Atheism. Doesn't matter if it fits the bill you just throw out the Atheism card. So just fuck off back to the land of the delusional where you and you religious zealots can figure ou new ways to control morons and didle littl chidren.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
It would be just plain rude not to. :-)
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Warning credibility levels now at Absolute Zero. Houston, he has a problem!
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
DavidCrow wrote:
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
You all "feed" me because you all *know* that I'm right. If I really were the "troll" that you fools want to believe that I am, you'd have no difficulty in ignoring me. Nor would you have to resort to insults -- it is, after all, you people who *always* initiate the insults, usually as your first response, and then you (plural) bitch because I return to you exactly what you asked for. If it really were true that what I say is wrong, as you fools want to assert is the case, you'd not have to resort to irrationality and illogic (and sometimes, outright lies) to "argue" against what I say. Nor would you have to resort to "disappearing" my posts. You people respond to criticism of your false worldview just as the Islamists do to criticism of their false worldview: rage, irrationality, illogic, self-contradiction, and attempted intimidation.
-
Warning credibility levels now at Absolute Zero. Houston, he has a problem!
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!" You people are so amusing. You constantly assert that I have no "credibility," you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical ... and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one. So, if my "credibility" is only just now a Absolute Zero, it must have been higher previously. And yet, you (singular and plural) have asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable. So, by your own admission, you were lying before. Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
-
Ilíon, I'm confused. You wrote this; this is your ultimate logic debunking atheism: IF 'materialism' is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN minds (or 'souls' if you prefer that word) cannot exist. BUT minds do exist. THEREFORE, 'materialism' (and 'physicalism,' and 'naturalism,' and 'atheism,' and 'agnosticism') is clearly seen to be false. But I don't get it.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But I don't get it.
That just means your brain is functioning correctly. If gibberish starts to make sense, then you need to worry.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Egocentric righteousness: the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
What is that truth that you call THE TRUTH young junior?
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Even if the jury rejected that argument, one can wonder how sane is somebody able to do such a thing. Sometimes the frontier beween crime and mental desease is fuzzy.
Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
-
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!" You people are so amusing. You constantly assert that I have no "credibility," you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical ... and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one. So, if my "credibility" is only just now a Absolute Zero, it must have been higher previously. And yet, you (singular and plural) have asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable. So, by your own admission, you were lying before. Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
Ilíon wrote:
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!"
Not by a long shot. I'm affraid it will be a cold day in hell before I need to utter the words "Iliot is correct." But I'd love to see you prove me wrong.
Ilíon wrote:
You constantly assert that I have no "credibility,"
You keep proving it.
Ilíon wrote:
you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical
No, I usually assert that you are insane and spout gibberish and yet have an overly hyper sense of pride in your meager mental faculties. You are without a doubt the most arrogant person I've ever encountered, and I've yet to see anything that would warrant it.
Ilíon wrote:
and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one
No, I keep pointing them out hoping some day you'll realize what we all know every time we read one of your posts.
Ilíon wrote:
it must have been higher previously
Very astute. Since previously I've said that you are loosing credibility fast.
Ilíon wrote:
asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable
Show me the post that says that, and I'll show you somebody else' post.
Ilíon wrote:
So, by your own admission, you were lying before
Incorrect.
Ilíon wrote:
Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
I couldn't care less what you believe. But who's this "we" you refer to?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A much better system, is to have a population which simply has an agreed upon set of moral principles which they accept on faith as arising from some underlieing set of universally true principles. In that way, you do not need a huge legal system, people would act 'morally' simply because they are taught the difference between right and wrong as deinfed by that grass roots moral perspective. That is the role religion plays within society, and it is an important role.
I agree with you there, and have always avoided attacking religion, in debates, based on this, but then you have to replace the now redundant legal system with a theocracy, to ensure that all people have a religion that imparts some morality into them.
It doesn't require a theocracy at all. In fact, it is the only way to prevent a theocracy. The only way you can have separation of church and state is if both exist.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You imagine that your strawmen misrepresentations of "theists" are relevent to anything.
Brady Kelly wrote:
... It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You refuse even to recognize that you're asserting objective morality ... except that the morality you assert is not grounded in anything, it's just there floating in your assertions.
You make no sense.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You imagine that your strawmen misrepresentations of "theists" are relevent to anything.
Brady Kelly wrote:
... It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You refuse even to recognize that you're asserting objective morality ... except that the morality you assert is not grounded in anything, it's just there floating in your assertions.
"You *refuse* to think critically." :laugh: :laugh: Personally I think you do more for atheistic causes than atheists ever could. If they were to harp on about there being no reason to believe in a god without being provoked, they would probably come off just as preachey and annoying as religious nuts. You on the other hand, give pretty substantial weight to there being good reasons not to believe in a god. Look at how the alternatives can rot your brain of ration arguments and substance. I'd probably go as far as to say you're actually an atheist in disguise, actively damaging peoples opinions on religion from the inside out, thanks for your continued dedication and hard work. You're a star! :)
-
Even if the jury rejected that argument, one can wonder how sane is somebody able to do such a thing. Sometimes the frontier beween crime and mental desease is fuzzy.
Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.